From LGPedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please don't remove my edits without explaining why. ~ QtheC 12:00, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

The reason I removed the userbox is because it really isn't explaining the 436 phenomenon, and it's easily found elsewhere. Of course, we could tack it on in here... - Shiori 17:07, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Thanks for explaining. I restored the 436 Userbox as an example of the 436, adding text telling readers to highlight it rather than leaving the hidden text as an 'easter egg.' The hidden text exists, yet it does not just like the 436, an existential dualism.
I think the point of the 436 and 437 pages, as well as 'breeniversisms' is to share the humor of this odd idea that grew out of the comments page, and that was why I created this Userbox in the first place several months ago.
Really, I think all the information on the 437 page probably belongs on the 436 page or related discussion page as it is already a reach that newer users will find 437 - it may be a little too obscure in my opinion, though 436 purists may disagree - further relegating something to 437 discussion page is even more obscure. I'm also not sure where else this Userbox could be found (other than on my user page), or whether there is a better location than this article. ~ QtheC 04:55, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
All of the userboxes can be found here: LGPedia:Userboxes, and the 436 template is on there. We really shouldn't be putting userboxes on any pages other than that one or User pages.- Shiori 07:14, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
Why not? Seems arbitrary. ~ QtheC 20:38, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
All userboxes available are on that page. Those who know about userboxes and want to use them go there to get them. Those who don't know about userboxes will ask and be pointed to that page anyway - posting userboxes elsewhere is redundant and unfair towards other box creators whose creations don't appear on actual content pages. I don't see my Girl Tied Up userbox promoted on Girl Tied Up, for example...
~ Renegade (talk | contribs) 21:13, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
It's not a question of fairness, but of consistency. Of course, if Userboxes are okay to put on some content pages such as this one, then they should be okay to put on other content pages such as Girl Tied Up. I see another user has decided to edit out even a reference to the 436 Userbox on this page. I don't like this kind of arbitrary censorship - I think it is not conducive to the kind of collaborative effort we all want for the LGPedia. I could just as easily edit out this user's additions to the "Breeniversisms" page (that I created), for instance, and we could have a lovely editing war that no one wants. So instead, I am taking this up with a lead moderator. If the answer in this instance is that the LGPedia moderators would prefer not to have the clutter of Userboxes anywhere besides the User pages, I will respect that, even if it is not my preference here. I would still propose that links to such userboxes be acceptable on content pages - it's supposed to be fun right? ~ QtheC 23:18, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
I don't know if there's a rule, guys, but i agree with Shiori that userboxes shouldn't go on general content pages. --Milowent 21:10, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
I'm going to post what I put on the User templates talk page here, since I think it's a good write-up of exactly why userboxes shouldn't go on content pages:
The reason we don't add information about userboxes to topic pages is, not only is it not encyclopedic (do you see Wiki doing this?), but in order to have any use for a userbox you have to actually have a user page AND want a userbox. If you haven't noticed the majority of our contributors are anonymous, without user pages. I think it's safe to assume that the vast majority of people reading the wiki would have no interest in userboxes.
Saying Userboxes are not encyclopedic is an empty argument. It's like saying they are not allowed on content pages, so therefore they should not be allowed on content pages. The boundaries of what is included in 'encylopedic' are abitrary. A better argument against including Userboxes on LGPedia content pages would be that they are confusing, add clutter, mess up formatting, or take up space without adding much useful information (if these are true and cannot be fixed easily). But there may be stronger reasons to include Userboxes on content pages - they are fun, they encourage participation in LGPedia, they add a method for motivated individuals to put a touch of creative/humor into the LGPedia, they actually are well formatted and do not take up that much space, etc. Even if Userboxes are not widely used on content pages, perhaps they should be selectively included, e.g. on character description pages, or video description pages, or on other LG15 related topic pages, or on fan topics such as this one about the 436. Different decisions might apply to different pages. A Userbox might belong here, as an "other example" of past 436 usage, but not on a video summary page, for instance. ~ QtheC 07:17, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
That's not to say that I hate userboxes (I love them!), and that's why I compromised and said we could include it here. - Shiori 23:33, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
I have already addressed your relegation of that info from the content page to the talk page - it's not really the purpose of the talk pages to hide bonus content on them. ~ QtheC 07:17, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Also, please, for the love of [deity], do NOT put the userbox information back onto the page until this conversation is completed. If you keep it up, some people may see it as vandalism (just warning you). - Shiori 23:39, 18 March 2008 (CDT)
You have it backwards, Shiori. It is closer to 'vandalism' for you to troll and delete my minor contributions abitrarily without first engaging in and completing a discussion, which is why I brought this to the attention of the lead moderator last night. How would you like it if I treated your contributions in the same way? e.g. I could just as easily delete your recent SMAD addition to the Breeniversisms page and insist you have a discussion to get approval for it before adding it there. Whether Userboxes are included on content pages is one issue and I have initiated a discussion about it both here and on the Userbox page, but your heavy handed editing/deletion of positive contributions is not welcoming or good policy and not in line with the best interests of this shared resource. ~ QtheC 06:54, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Look, I really don't want to get in an argument over this, but you have no precedent at all to have added it in the first place. I gave an adequate explanation as to why it was removed, and we're discussing that. The reason I keep removing it is because it's your change that was disputed, not my removal of it. In a dispute situation, the page gets reverted to the state it was in before the disputed information was added, and then a conversation takes place as to why it is being disputed. You don't get immunity because "you were here first". I don't see why you seem to think this is a personal attack. (BTW, my addition of Smad was something completely unrelated; it had its own page, and I figured it should just be added rather than floating around randomly. I don't even care for the term, so go ahead and remove if you want.) - Shiori 06:58, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Actually, first you deleted my contribution without any comment or explanation, stepping on my toes. When I asked for one, you gave an initial reason above which was that it did not "explain" the 436. That isn't true, but I modified my addition to include a comment to clarify that it was an example of the 436 to address your explanation. Then you deleted it again. So I changed it to a text link rather than actually putting the Userbox on the page. And you deleted that. Eventually, you said that the Userboxes are not 'encyclopedic.' I have addressed that above. This is a bit silly, but there it is.
What is more troubling to me as someone that wants to play by the rules and make occasional positive contributions to this resource is your attitude that you can arbitrarily delete inoffensive content/edits repeatedly in the way you have here. It's disrespectful and unwelcoming. If there is something that is obscene or makes a personal attack or something egregious like that, sure it should be deleted quickly. But for a minor content addition, it is not good policy for users to delete each other's edits first and expect the author to somehow gain approval before getting the material in question restored. That's no way to operate, and this conflict is the result. You need to attempt to reach an compromise/agreement first before deleting such material, not the other way around. ~ QtheC 07:31, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Fine, it can stay (for now) until we can get an admin to comment. DO NOT add the userbox back to the LG15 Today page, though. That is adding something disputed to a page. DON'T DO IT. - Shiori 07:37, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
As an aside, the only reason I'm allowing this (as I said, SOP is to remove disputed content, and this is flying directly in the face of that) is because I don't want to argue over the same points. People are agreeing with me in spades, but you're not seeing it. What we should be doing is removing all reference to userboxes from the 437 page and this talk page, and leaving this comment to the Userbox page, where it belongs. - Shiori 07:40, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
I honestly don't understand why you want the userbox on this page, it's totally unneeded and random. It's like saying, we use this userbox. But we also like to use this when we think about this, and at this time of the day we eat this sandwich. We don't want to confuse newcomers in an already confusing place.--SonofaStitch 07:54, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
I vote No userboxes on content pages. Can't we all get along? --Milowent 08:18, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
As a retired admin, I vote no as well. I compel all other retired admins to vote in this discussion.-- JayHenry 08:20, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
No to userboxes -- twjaniak 08:21, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
I also would like to return from retirement to endorse the No to userboxes on content pages position. -BRUCKER EyeBlueSmall.jpg (Home/Talk/Contribs) 08:30, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
No to userboxes. Although I rarely participate in LGPedia discussions, and am a well-known fan of shiny buttons and userboxes at all times, I concur with Shiori. I would edit the page myself, but I have no idea how the buttons on the wiki work. --Miles 08:31, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
No, I was never an admin. But I had a cool signature. Phunck! 08:33, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Keep I have to go against the herd on this one. I think QtheC is very cool, and sexy. And my vote won't really be effective against anyone else, and since I don't edit the LGPedia anymore, it won't really affect me. I want QtheC to stay. With me. Forever. --OwenIsCool 08:35, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
SMELL MY FISH TACO -- User:The fish taco man 08:40, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Strong no (from a special guest) I made a special request to Jay to be unblocked so I could participate in this very important discussion. Jay has my permission to reblock me immediately after I have voted. It is my strong belief that we should say no to userboxes on content pages. --Cassieiswatching 04:36, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
As a current admin, I say: LOL MILO! That was some much-needed humor in these drama-filled times on the pedia. But seriously, I agree with Shiori and Milo on this one. I understand your argument QtheC, but the purpose of userboxes is to put them on userpages, so putting them (or even links to them) on content pages really misapplies their purpose. A policy on Wikipedia (WP:SELF) is to never (except in special cases) reference the wiki itself on content pages. While this isn't Wikipedia by any means, I think that's a good guideline to follow to maintain an air of professionalism on the content pages.
Now, on the issue of this revert wars that went on here and on LG15 Today, that's really unacceptable. Citing Wikipedia again, they have a policy called WP:3RR which states that no one should revert a page more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. Now, this is not a rule here, so I'm not calling you guys out on anything, but there's a reason Wikipedia has that rule. Next time a revert war starts, please someone be the responsible one and stop perpetuating it.
However, having said that, in this case Shiori is right. I don't mean her opinion is right about whether the link should be on the page (although as I said I agree with her there), I mean that the policy she stated is how things are supposed to work. There is nothing wrong with reverting someone else's edit if the edit is perceived to be incorrect or against policy. So, QtheC, Shiori was completely within her bounds with her revert. At that point, if Shiori thought the revert needed explanation (often times they don't), she could have started a discussion on this talk page explaining her rationale. However, even though she didn't, it would have been wise to provide an explanation before re-inserting your edit, QtheC. I appreciate that you did start a discussion, but it didn't convince anyone of why your edit should stay, so Shiori's natural response was to remove it again. From there, things just got out of hand, and that is why we always discuss things first, before things escalate.
To be fair, QtheC, your logic is understandable and I see why you thought Shiori was acting out of hand, but now you know that the policy in these situations is to leave the disputed edit off the page until the discussion is finished and a consensus is reached. Now, of course this system runs the risk of encouraging people to challenge any old edit and in that way keep the edit off the page until a consensus is reached. However, using the system that way abuses it and likely won't work as consensus can be reached very quickly on edits which obviously have no rationale for removing them.--Jonpro 16:21, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Since 436 does not exist, how can this discussion exist?--modelmotion 16:28, 19 March 2008 (CDT)
Ah in my absence someone clearly drummed up some support (probably on IRC) and encouraged a few people to post here. Jonpro's comments are the most thoughtful, and I am willing to defer to appearance (if not reality) of a concensus that Userboxes and even links to Userboxes are not fair game on content pages. (I could of course round up a few users to post contrary opinions, but why bother?) However, the lack of recognition that shiori was out of line from beginning to end in her handling of this matter is really an embarassment to this community, and no doubt other toes will be smashed in the future as a result. The idea that users can without good reason and where there are no clear guidelines make arbitrary deletions of other people's well-meaning contributions to this shared resource is a mistake. A better policy would be one that encourages mutual respect, and you (collectively) have failed this time. ~ QtheC 13:35, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Clarification requested: Are those who said "No Userboxes" opposed to Userboxes themselves on content pages, or both Userboxes themselves and references (links) to Userboxes on content pages? ~ QtheC 13:56, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Further to the above discussion: Jonpro wrote "I mean that the policy she stated is how things are supposed to work. There is nothing wrong with reverting someone else's edit if the edit is perceived to be incorrect or against policy. So, QtheC, Shiori was completely within her bounds with her revert. At that point, if Shiori thought the revert needed explanation (often times they don't), she could have started a discussion on this talk page explaining her rationale." I think Jonpro is making an incorrect assumption in this statement that the deletion was made because the addition was "against policy." There was no policy about Userboxes - I proposed one on the Userbox page. I think it is also important to distinguish between reverting an edit and deleting wholesale a well-intended addition without justification of the removal, or proposing an alternative location or form for that addition. The idea that deletions of other peoples' contributions to the LGPedia without clear policy and without a discussion first is a bad idea, will foster conflicts like this one, and is against the spirit of the deletion policy as expressed in the LGPedia:Deletion_Policy for pages. It is, of course, refering to page deletions which adhere to a higher standard than small edits, but the spirit of the process is clear. "Only admins of the LGPedia can delete pages. Pages that only contain inflammatory content, are hateful, are clearly advertisements or spam can be deleted without discussion. Other pages will typically go through a discussion process of no less than one week. For larger articles, this discussion period can be extended. If there is no consensus, the issue will be put to a vote." If that is required for page deletions, surely a simple discussion is merited where a deletion is under consideration of something that is not offensive, etc. This entire conflict would have been avoided with a bit of courtesy and consideration in the first place. ~ QtheC 14:32, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

Oh for the love of-... Fine, QtheC, I see you won't be satisfied until you get a public apology, even despite what Jon said. Since I really loathe arguing, here you go:

Shiori said:
I, Shiori, am hereby formally apologizing to QtheC, as well as the many other great members of this community for reverting edits without offering rationales as to why I was doing what I was doing. I realize now that I, foolishly and impolitely, was stepping on everyone's toes and making the Pedia a truly unwelcoming community. For this, and all of my other horrible faults, I apologize.
- Shiori 15:48, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
I really don't think a sarcastic apology is helpful or appropriate, though I understand this is a response to criticism from me that may have been strongly worded and too abundant. For a constructive proposal to avoid or reduce such problems in the future, please consider and contribute to the discussion of a "Lesser Deletion Policy" : LGPedia_talk:Deletion_Policy to apply to deletions of content within existing pages where there is not established policy and a difference of opinion arises. ~ QtheC 16:16, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

What the? This is absurd, Shiori is one of our very best editors and we love her! (thats all I have to say, I really don't want to argue with anyone and won't reply to any arguments on here)Nancypants 15:58, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

It is nice that Shiori is liked and appreciated for her contributions to the LGPedia, and I have no wish to change that. That does not give license to disrespect and delete the contributions of others arbitrarily, which is how this all started. It's the old standard of your freedom ends where the next person's nose begins - corny but useful. ~ QtheC 16:16, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

In the words of Zoey last summer -- This = Stupid. Everyone = breathe. Conversation = over. I myself don't care who's in the right and who's in the wrong (and frankly, the whole thing has become just too argumentative to even consider who-did-what-wrong first, etc, etc). Perhaps we can all return to something productive? --Pheon 16:21, 20 March 2008 (CDT)

436 Userbox

Fans of the 436 may be interested in adding {{Userbox 436}} to their LGPedia User page.

436 This userbox does not exist.

For other Userboxes, see LGPedia:Userboxes.

The text above may later be added to the 437 content page. Discussion of the addition of Userboxes or references to Userboxes on content pages rather than on talk pages is underway here: Category talk:User templates#Userbox use on LGPedia (proposed) ~ QtheC 15:18, 20 March 2008 (CDT)


i seriously don't understand what you guys are talking about. you're a bunch of goofs. - platy march 13